Jurisdiction to decide drawback claims falls outside the advance ruling scope under Section 28H(2); application disposed without merits.

The Authority clarified that advance ruling jurisdiction under Section 28H(2) is confined to questions about classification, applicability of notifications in relation to duties that are leviable or chargeable under the Customs Act or Customs Tariff Act, valuation and origin; claims for duty drawback under Section 75 and the Drawback Rules, 2017 are rebate/refund mechanisms and not questions of levy/charge. Applying literal and contextual construction, the Authority held that drawback issues fall outside the enumerated categories in Section 28H(2) and therefore it lacks jurisdiction to pronounce an advance ruling on the claimant's drawback claim; the application was disposed without a ruling on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR) has jurisdiction under Section 28H of the Customs Act, 1962 to pronounce an advance ruling on claim of duty drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 in respect of retrofitting of imported measuring sections of calibration rigs and their subsequent export.

Analysis: The Authority examined the scope of questions allowable under Section 28H(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which are limited to specified matters such as classification, applicability of notifications under section 25(1), valuation principles, applicability of notifications in respect of taxes or duties chargeable or leviable under the Customs Act or the Customs Tariff Act, and determination of origin. The Authority contrasted these with the nature of duty drawback under Section 75 and the Drawback Rules, 2017, which describe drawback as a rebate of duty payable under Sections 74 and 75 and which was notified under the powers of Section 75 (and Section 37 of the Central Excise Act) rather than under the charging/levying provisions (Section 12 of the Customs Act or Sections 2/3 of the Customs Tariff Act). The Authority analysed the statutory language, including the words "applicability of notifications", "chargeable" and "leviable" in Section 28H(2)(d), and applied principles of literal and contextual statutory construction to conclude that the clause is concerned with applicability of notifications in respect of duties/taxes which are leviable/chargeable under the Customs Act or Customs Tariff Act. The Authority therefore held that questions concerning refund/rebate/drawback, which are distinct from questions of levy/charge of customs duty, do not fall within the enumerated categories in Section 28H(2). Case law and provisions relating to refund and settlement were considered but distinguished on the basis that the Advance Ruling jurisdiction is expressly limited to the matters listed in Section 28H(2).

Conclusion: The Authority has no jurisdiction under Section 28H(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 to pronounce an advance ruling on the claim for duty drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017; the application is disposed of by the Authority without a ruling on the merits.

---